D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 13 October 1990 in imposing punishment of warning against the petitioner under para 19. 6 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966 as amended. The petitioner also seeks further relief in pursuance of quashing of that order as may be ordered by this Court. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, a clerk in respondent bank, appeared in the Associated Examination in May 1987 held by the Indian Institute of Bankers. The petitioner, it appeared, indulged in malpractice and used unfair means in the examination. The Institute debarred the petitioner from appearing in any examination upto 31 May 1990. This was as per rules of the Institute. On receipt of a communication received from the Institute the respondent bank served a charge sheet on the petitioner on 27 May 1989 as the use of unfair means in the examination tentamounted to gross misconduct in terms of clause 19. 5 (o) of the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement. After enquiry though the Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that the petitioner was not guilty of having indugled in malpractice the Disciplinary Authority disagreed, and after due opportunity to the petitioner, imposed punishment of warning in terms of para 19. 6 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement. This the petitioner, as mentioned above, has challenged. The petitioner also explained that he was not allowed to take examination again though the time bar imposed by the Institute had expired. The case of the Bank had been that since the petitioner could not be considered for promotion for two years from the date of award of punishment, he could take the examination and that would be part of consideration for promotion to the next post of the Junior Management Grade Scale I. ( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised at the outset that the impunged order is appealable and the petitioner did not avail of that remedy and so the petition is haired as the petitioner did not make use of an efficacious alternative remedy. To this the petitioner has replied in effect that he was unaware of any such provision. This is not acceptable to us. To this the petitioner has replied in effect that he was unaware of any such provision. This is not acceptable to us. However, an examination was again held by the Institute on 28 June 1992 and on the basis of an interim order made by this Court the petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination but it was directed that his result would not be declared. The examination was for promotion from clerk to officer in Junior Management Grade Scale I. Since the examination was taken by the petitioner under an interim order of this Court we think we should decide this matter at this stage, and need not decide the question if the petitioner should have filed an appeal before coming to this Court. Ordinarily, court,does not interfere till the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies available to him under the law. However, all proceedings in this case will not be taken as a precedent for any other or similar case. ( 4 ) WE, however, do not find any error in the order imposing penalty on the petitioner and the order dated 13 October 1990 is, therefore, upheld. ( 5 ) THE respondent then contended that as per the rules since the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner on 13 October 1990 he could not sit in the examination and could not seek promotion. In this connection reference was drawn 10 para 3 of the Terms of Settlement. Clauses (a) and (b) are relevant and may be reproduced as under :- " (A) An employee who was punished for gross misconduct shall not be eligible for being considered for promotion during a period of two years succeeding the date of imposing the punishment (b) An employee under suspension or against whom depart- oriental enquiry for gross misconduct is pending or who has been chargesheeted for gross misconduct, can sit in the written test and interview but shall no. -e eligible for promotion till he is exonerated by the charge. If ultimately he is found to be not guilty of gross misconduct and has been approved for promotion, the bank shall promote the said employee from the date the said decision has been given by the Disciplinary Authority. -e eligible for promotion till he is exonerated by the charge. If ultimately he is found to be not guilty of gross misconduct and has been approved for promotion, the bank shall promote the said employee from the date the said decision has been given by the Disciplinary Authority. In case of punishment being awarded for gross misconduct, he shall not be promoted and will not be eligible for being considered for promotion and officiating for 2 years from the date of punishment. "we are, however, unable to agree with this contention raised by the respondent There is an apparent conflict between clauses (a) and (b ). If we accept the contention of the respondent that the petitioner could not have taken his examination before the expiry of two years from the date of imposition of penalty on him, that would be so under clause (a ). Under clause (b), if the employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending takes the examination and even though he is punished, he will not be considered for promotion for two years from the date of punishment. This clause (b) would appear to say that nevertheless the examination already taken by that employee would not be struck off and that employee need not take another examination during the period of two years from the date of punishment awarded to him. The only bar is that he will be considered for promotion after two years of the punishment. This would be so even for clause (a) as well. We do not find any bar on the employee taking the examination for promotion within two years of the awarding of punishment on him though he will be considered for promotion only after the expiry of two years from the date of the punishment awarded to him. In the present case, the punishment was awarded on 13 October 1990. We have been told that the petitioner has since passed the examination which was held on 28 June 1992. He will, therefore, be entitled to be considered for promotion from 13 October 1992. His seniority will be fixed as from 13 October 1992. The petition is, therefore, allowed to that extent. No costs.